Re: [Tsv-art] [v6ops] [Last-Call] Tsvart last call review of draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-ehs-packet-drops-05

[Fernando Gont <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

On 7/4/21 11:58, Nick Hilliard wrote:
> Rob Wilton (rwilton) wrote on 07/04/2021 15:22:
>> I guess that the authors could consider adding a sentence that it
>> also doesn't provide any recommendation on how end hosts make use of
>> extension headers, but that might be a bit incongruous in the sense
>> that the document doesn't appear to talk about end host behaviour at
>> all ...
> well, this is kinda the concern that we as authors have.  The document 
> is completely clear that it's descriptive, and not prescriptive, and 
> there is an entire disclaimer section which points this out.  We get 
> Tom's interest in having a document that tells forwarding stack software 
> authors what to aim towards, but this isn't that document and we've got 
> well-defined reasons for not wanting to move in that direction.
> 
> If Tom or others find that the idea of a descriptive-only document 
> doesn't match what they would want, well ok, I guess that's 
> understandable from the point of view of a software author - but 
> consensus isn't unanimity either.  As you suggest, adding an extra 
> sentence as a further disclaimer seems incongruous and I'm not sure that 
> it would turn the document into a better version of itself.

Tom seems to be willing to have a document that proposes a path forward 
to improve usage of EHs. As noted in the very disclaimer, this is not 
that document. That's subject to a different document that interested 
parties should submit.

So, in my opinon, this document is ready tp ship to the IESG.

Thanks!

Cheers,
-- 
Fernando Gont
SI6 Networks
e-mail: [e-mail]
PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492